CEOs should pay for their employee food stamps, Medicaid

@ Dr. Thom: It has only been in the last several years that businesses have
focused on providing a profit for shareholders. A minimal amount of research
into the economic history of this country will show that.

At the time
of the Founding of this Country, the purpose of a business was to serve the
community. And corporations were viewed with a great deal of distrust.

SpocOgden, UT

Sept. 1, 2013 2:40 p.m.

Supply and Demand

The harvest season of 1894 in Utah County was a
great one for wheat, so much so that many who relied on wheat as a cash crop
could not sell what they harvested at any price. The potato crop was dismal so
prices were high. The following year many farmers sought to capitalize on that
situation and planted potatoes instead. That fall there were thousands of
bushels of potatoes they could not sell, but a lack of spring rain had killed
most of the wheat so there was a severe flour shortage. One enterprising man
built a potato shredder and refined his crop, and those of his neighbors, into
potato starch which they sold as a flour substitute.

If Walmart does
not have to compete with wages because there is an abundance of low skill
workers, don't blame Walmart. Figure out where the shortage is and refine
your skillset to fit and start a business. Tell the SLC Chamber we have a good
supply of low skill workers and don't need to import more. And tell the
government to quit making it more profitable to refuse work than to take the
entry level.

Howard BealProvo, UT

Sept. 1, 2013 1:33 p.m.

I think capitalism can be a good thing. But it sometimes up to capitalists to
engage in responsible capitalism. What is responsible capitalism? Well,
that's treating your employees with respect (and this goes beyond wage).
It is giving a better wage when you have the power to do so? It is providing
good service and good products at a decent prize. All of this doesn't mean
you can't make a profit as a business. But if those who espouse capitalism
as the best system as they grow weary of its critics, maybe some things can be
done better and more responsibly. The fact that a building collapsed in
Bangladesh killing over 1000 people while they were making textiles for pennies
on the dollar for companies that do business in America, including Wal-Mart,
should concern us all. Does this make capitalism look good? We saw in our own
society some of the problems with laissez-faire capitalism and now we see those
problems in third world countries. Again, I think many of our big corporations
can do better and STILL make PROFITS. Capitalism's own survival comes from
meeting this challenges.

Dr. ThomLong Beach, CA

Sept. 1, 2013 12:03 p.m.

Maudine,

Business are not founded on the concept that the purpose of
being in or starting a business is to provide a real wage for their employees,
but is to operate that business while minimizing operational costs which
includes holding down wages and other expenses. In short the point of any
business is maximizing profits for its shareholders.

CEO are paid
more since they unlike most employees have a contract that states their base
compensation and any stock options. If the stock goes up, they get more money,
but if the stock goes down, then not so much.

When a friend sold the
business he stared in his home for $20 million, he didn't divide that
amount by the number of employees and call it a day, he gave bonuses based on
length of service, and kept the remaining $19 million for himself.

markSalt Lake City, UT

Sept. 1, 2013 11:59 a.m.

"Isn't this so typical of those who would tell us that money is not
ours to spend as we see fit, but that money belongs to the government and the
government will decide who gets money from " some rich guy"?"

Richards, could you provide the quote from anyone on this thread that
has said this, or anyone in any position of influence in the US of A that has
said this. You can't, can you? You are just making things up.

"you don't have the right to tell that store what to pay its
employees or how to run its business."

Of course society has a
right to tell a store how to run its business. Businesses have to follow certain
codes and regulations. Society has every right, and the responsibility, to
dictate the terms of how a business can function in a community, including
issues of employee compensation. Indeed, even what employees they can hire (for
instance laws against child labor).

What is it with you guys that
think businesses and business owners should be able to function with no
oversight by the community? That some how they are a law unto themselves.

zoar63Mesa, AZ

Sept. 1, 2013 11:43 a.m.

Why is it that people will complain about the money CEOs make when at the same
time they will attend athletic events where the participants are paid millions,
go to music concerts where the artists are paid millions and go to movies in
which the actors are paid millions. And some of the money that these celebrities
are paid would dwarf what a CEO makes. It seems like as long as we are being
entertained we have no problem with the 1 percent and their incomes as long as
it is not CEO’s and corporations. Look at all the money we could have
available for the poor and sick if we could cap celebrity earnings.

Way of the WarriorARLINGTON, WA

Sept. 1, 2013 12:01 a.m.

I've got a new slogan: "Taxpayers of the Country UNITE!" Oh wait...

Jorypayson, utah

Aug. 31, 2013 9:17 p.m.

Here is the thing. Why don't you guys who are complaining that the job
creators not creating any jobs, why don't you put your money where your
mouth is and start your own business. Then you can pay the people you employ
whatever you want.

LightbearerBrigham City, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 6:11 p.m.

Re: "Isn't this so typical of those who would tell us that money is not
ours to spend as we see fit ..."

If the money we earn is ours to
spend as we see fit, then why isn't gambling, for example, legal in all
states? Aren't the legislators in those states where gambling is
prohibited, such as Utah, telling us that they know better than we do how to
spend our money? Aren't they telling us that our money is not really ours
to spend as we see fit, that unlike people in other states, we're not grown
up enough to decide how to spend it ourselves?

But let me guess,
it's all right if a state prohibits its citizens from spending their money
on gambling, because gambling, unless it's done on the stock, options, or
commodities markets, is wrong - well, except in those states where it's
allowed, and therefore isn't wrong - and prohibiting it is "for our own
good."

So gambling's wrong, and the government should
prohibit it.

But for some odd reason, paying employees "hunger
wages" isn't wrong, so the government should do nothing about it.

GildasLOGAN, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 5:20 p.m.

@ Truthseeker:

Cutting the Corporate Tax is still a good idea imo
but, if that does not level the playing field, a healthy import duty for goods
originating countries paying smaller salaries, such as you mentioned, would do
it.

The United States for a great many years paid its bills largely
with import duties, they did not tax the incomes of the people before 1913.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 5:11 p.m.

Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States.

His platform:

Higher import tariffs.Sell public lands, and buy the slaves their
freedom.Women and Blacks get the vote.Universal Healthcare.A
Social Security program of sorts.A cut of Congressional pay by 75%.A
progressive tax.A National Bank.A stronger Federal Government.

AND

a better redistribution of the wealth.

Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah

Aug. 31, 2013 4:32 p.m.

Isn't this so typical of those who would tell us that money is not ours to
spend as we see fit, but that money belongs to the government and the government
will decide who gets money from " some rich guy"?

If you
don''t like the way that McDonallds or Wal-Mart operates, then
don't shop there. You have the right to choose the store, but you
don't have the right to tell that store what to pay its employees or how to
run its business.

If you want the government to enter your home and
tell YOU how to spend your money, then you know nothing about being a citizen
living in the United States. YOU have a responsibility. YOU can decide where to
spend YOUR money but YOU cannot dictate to others how they spend their money.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 4:32 p.m.

I'm sorry, but reality check;Nobody [CEOs] is worth $60,000 an hour.

let's rollLEHI, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 4:07 p.m.

Consumers have real power they rarely use. Folks who bemoan how much CEOs make
or how little companies pay their workers and ask someone else (the government
or the companies themselves) to do something about it will see little change and
remain powerless (and frankly, many people would prefer to complain rather than
do anything about it).

K-Mart used to be bigger than Walmart. It
didn't shrink because of anything the government did. It withered because
most people stopped shopping there.

If you feel strongly about a
cause, share your passion with others and encourage them to vote with their
patronage. If people really care about CEO pay, they can not only impact that
but they can get CEOs fired. Companies dump CEOs when they loose market
share.

As long as revenues and profits continue to rise, companies
are not likely to make any changes in their business practices. Consumers,
banded together, can make changes to company policy, letters to the editor
cannot.

Lilly Munsternetherlands, 00

Aug. 31, 2013 3:50 p.m.

WallMart, Halliburton, Bain Capital. How can any honest citizen find justice,
equality or a living wage when these Vulture Capitalists OWN the most lobbyists,
and OWN the most Politicians? What would it take to return power and
opportunity to the working class?

DavidCenterville, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 3:39 p.m.

Dane, it isn't "fraud" when a corporation pays it CEO, regardless
of the amount or the increase. It also isn't fraud that a corporation pays
its employees, even if their pay is very little.

Rather, I think
you mean to say "poor management" and "poor decision making".
But not fraud.

Rather than suggesting that corporations pay for food
stamps or other government entitlement programs, why don't you stop buying
things at McDonalds and Walmart? I am sure if enough people showed their
displeasure in these huge, grossly overpaid salaries to CEOs by not purchasing
things from such businesses, that there will be a greater and more immediate
impact and change.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Aug. 31, 2013 3:30 p.m.

re:Gildas" A better solution would be to decrease our American
corporate tax, currently the highest in the world, so we could compete with
Chinese manufactures and bring industry home."

The U.S. has
higher statutory tax rates, but lower "effective" tax rates than many
countries.

The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average
for developed countries. Corporations in 19 of the member states of the OECD
paid 16.1% of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while
corporations in the U.S. paid 13.4%.

The U.S. tax code offers so many
deductions, credits, and other mechanisms by which corporations can reduce their
taxes, the actual percentage of profits that U.S. corporations pay in taxes or
what analysts refer to as their effective tax rate is not high, compared to
other developed countries.(CBPP)

Manufacturing jobs are in
China (India and other countries) due to wage rates (less than $2.00/hr) NOT
corporate tax rates.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 2:46 p.m.

Problem is, we, the people, don’t have any control over the people who
decide who pays taxes.

If we, the people, can get control of our
government by clearing away the obstacles of our voting and removing the effect
of business, we may be able to improve our status and happiness.

A
better plan would be for the government to hire all who wanted a job and at a
rate that makes the American dream possible. The cost of the program to be paid
for not by the CEOs but by a flat rate on all of business operations.

Business would have the choice to pay the tax or hire the people at a rate
greater than the government pay. Either way we would have full employment and a
booming economy.

GildasLOGAN, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 2:32 p.m.

The LDS Church had a great idea: to develop our own co-operative industrial
system in the then "State of Deseret". I wish that had worked out but
too many chose to go outside the system to buy products either more prestigious
or of a cheaper quality. One day I expect to see that system of home
manufactures given another try.

Similarly we are concerned about how
WalMart treats its employees and the apparent fact that it could afford to pay
them substantially more. Nevertheless we are forgetting, it seems, that Walmart
is the biggest retailer of "Made in China" goods in the country. A
better solution would be to decrease our American corporate tax, currently the
highest in the world, so we could compete with Chinese manufactures and bring
industry home. We could, in this and other ways, "level the playing
field" so that home productions could thrive. Paul, and I believe Romney,
would or might have encouraged such a policy, though I think Romney's
general economic policy lacked sufficient specifics.

Then again
Americans could, if they really wanted, begin by buying "Made in
America" where there is still an American product to be had.

GroverSalt Lake City, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 1:40 p.m.

On the topic of recent college grads having a high degree of unemployment, the
new reality is that grads not finding a job in their field are offered
internships that give both employee and employer a look at a prospective
career/prospective employee. This seems a great option for both sides, but here
again things went astray. The Supreme Court ruled this past term that employers
were taking advantage of interns by asking them to do work to benefit the
company but without pay. The Court had to set rules to assure that interns were
not being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who hire unpaid interns
instead of full time employees. The government is the only referee that can
prevent the abuses this letter and the comments review. The government
shouldn't compete with the private sector, but their is no other or better
referee for job market abuses.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Aug. 31, 2013 11:08 a.m.

"Walmart employs about 2.1 million people, 2/3 of them in the U.S. Its 2012
revenue was 3x's that of Apple and 15x's that of McDonald's.

A study in Wisconsin by the U.S. House Committee on Education and the
Workforce determined that a typical Walmart store costs taxpayers over $1.7
million/yr, or about $5,815 per employee.

Four members of the
Walmart family made a combined $20 BILLION from their investments last year.
Less than half of that would have given every U.S. Walmart worker a $3/hr
raise."(Paul Buchheit, lead creator of Gmail)

ugottabkidnSandy, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 10:52 a.m.

Not to mention these so called job creators drain the economy more than any
person on food stamps does.

FreedomFighter41Provo, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 10:44 a.m.

"The bottom line is without a college education to get higher paying jobs
people don't have a chance, there are few jobs that pay a decent wage
without a degree."

And yet... The stats show that those who are
the highest unemployed are recent college grads. So what's the point of
getting yourself thousands in debt when you won't have a job once you
graduate?

Here in America we don't have an education problem. We
have a problem with corporations completely gouging the American public. We are
being taken to the cleaners. When will we wake up?

This isn't a
R or D issue. But an American worker issue. The time has come. Enough is enough!

LightbearerBrigham City, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 10:09 a.m.

Re: "Does anyone understand what 'an entry level job is?'"

If someone loses his job, people say he should take any job he can get.
Often minimum wage jobs are the only jobs available, but if he takes one, then
people criticize him for having an entry level job. If he simply must take such
lowly work, and it doesn't pay enough for him to live on, then he should
get a second and a third job. Then, while working three full-time jobs he should
somehow "improve his skill set," so that he can get a higher-paying
position.

Forbes:

"According to a recent survey ...
Millenials really are most likely to be employed in service industry jobs. So,
all those jokes about post-graduation latte pouring and t-shirt folding
haven't been in vain. And while it might be comforting to think of these
jobs as necessary way stations on the path to an upwardly mobile future ...
there's mounting evidence that the American labor market may never return
to its pre-recession composition. The future is already here and it brings with
it low-wage temporary or contract work as a way of life."

The Real MaverickOrem, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 9:51 a.m.

@ Star Bright

"Does anyone understand what "an entry level
job is?""

I think we all do. However, do you not understand
that while these corporations are giving gigantic increases to their CEOs that
you are then paying (out of your tax dollars) to give their employees food
stamps and health care?

How does that make any sense? I thought
repubs were concerned over how their taxes are spent.

Lets use some
common sense here. Until employees at these corporations are compensated enough
to be off food stamps and medicaid, none of these CEOs should be paid.
Especially huge bonuses.

It only makes sense. Think about it.

one old manOgden, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 9:49 a.m.

May I nominate this for the Letter Of The Year Award?

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 9:45 a.m.

trekker

Salt Lake, UT

The bottom line is without a
college education to get higher paying jobs people don't have a chance,
there are few jobs that pay a decent wage without a degree.

========

Now necessarily.

1. Many of those WITH college degrees
can't even get a "good" job anymore.2. There has not been a
"good" job market now for over 6 years, so wages have been stagnant to
receding.3. They are completely with college degrees and 5+ years
experience over jobs making barely $15 hour.4. Their debt to earning
ratios for that piece of paper is no longer a good investment of their time OR
money.

So -- Why should one go into debt $50,000 to get a job
making $5 an hour more than minimum wage?

And If they
aren't moving UP - no one else will either.

Meanwhile -- GDP appears to go up, but the rich (1%) who produce nothing - but
collect the earnings of the actual producers are getting richer, and the poor
(the 99%) keep getting poorer.

Kings CourtAlpine, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 9:32 a.m.

Good letter. These large corporations are taking advantage of government
welfare programs (the taxpayer) to pick up the slack for their Scrooge wages,
just so they can turn an ever-increasing, year over year, double-digit profits
for their shareholders. Wall street has lost its way. Investors used to be
happy with just profitability, now they are only happy with those companies who
are exponentially profitable which has led to a decline in real wages and
reliance on government welfare programs. They have become the real government
moochers.

Star BrightSalt Lake City, Ut

Aug. 31, 2013 8:46 a.m.

Does anyone understand what "an entry level job is?"

MaudineSLC, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 8:36 a.m.

@ trekker: Many of those who work minimum wage jobs have a college education.
The problem us that "job creators" are not creating jobs. Additionally,
many high paying jobs require no college - education is not the answer - decent
wages are.

The fastest growing industries in the US are retail and
food service - industries that don't require an education and that we allow
to pay low wages.

In spite of claims to the contrary, it is
possible for companies like these to thrive while paying real wages and benefits
to their employees - examples of this are businesses like Costco and WinCo.

Whether or not employees have a college education, taxpayers should not
be subsidizing businesses by paying for food, housing, and healthcare for their
employees.

ShaunSandy, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 7:31 a.m.

I think that U.S. government and local governments should stop giving huge
corporations(Walmart) tax breaks and incentives if the workers of these
corporations are on government assistance. Why should the taxpayers subsidize
walmart's profits?

MaudineSLC, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 4:54 a.m.

If a business cannot afford to pay the full cost of doing business - which
includes paying a real wage to their employees - perhaps they should not be in
business.

If we, as consumers, want the product or service a
business is providing, we should be willing to pay the full cost of that product
or service.

Those who do not want that product or service should not
have their tax money used to support it - especially if the head of the company
and the stockholders are making hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
dollars.

trekkerSalt Lake, UT

Aug. 31, 2013 3:47 a.m.

The bottom line is without a college education to get higher paying jobs people
don't have a chance, there are few jobs that pay a decent wage without a
degree. The US is changing, soon there will be no middle class. You will have
the poor and the rich. I would like to see money go toward getting those on
assistance an education so they can support themselves, kind of like the teach a
man to fish story. Otherwise they will be on food stamps welfare for the rest of
their lives.